Robin Tolmach Lakoff

The limits of politeness: therapeutic and courtroom discourse

Theories and descriptions of politeness have concentrated on its form and function in ordinary dyadic conversation. This is reasonable, since the purpose of politeness is to avoid conflict, and conflict is both most apt to occur, and most dangerous, in that discourse formal. This paper extends the examination of politeness to two discourse types ofwhich conflict is an intrinsic element: psychotherapeutic discourse and the discourse ofthe American trial courtroom. It argues that, in these contexts, non-polite behavior can be systematic and normal. A distinction is proposed, for genres like these, between non-polite and rüde. Consequences are discussed in terms ofpower relations between participants.

STYLISTIC STRATEGIES WITHIN A GRAMMAR OF STYLE

Interpersonal behavior is frequently regarded as unpredictable and spontaneous. We do not feel that we are following rules or even a preordained pattern in the way we talk to others, move, respond emotionally, work, think-all the varied aspects of what, following Shapiro (1965) we can call personal style. Indeed, some of us might be horrified at the idea that, in all our actions, we are governed by implicit rules, just as Chomsky (e.g., 1968) has shown we are in our linguistic behavior (and has thereby himself aroused horrified responses), and are as little aware of it. In this paper, assuming the validity of the assumption of generative grammar that linguistic behavior is rule-governed, I want to extend that claim to a variety of other kinds of behavior that can be subsumed under terms like “character,” “personality,” or “personal style.” I will argue that the same kind of evidence that indicates a need for grammatical rules relating two levels of linguistic structure exists for this wider range of human functioning. Needless to say, the argument that implicit rules guide our behavior denies us neither autonomy nor creativity: these rules are predictive schemata, descriptive rather than prescriptive. In this paper, drawing on previous work, I use as a principal example the distinction between men’s and women’s typical personal style, in American middle-class culture; but the argument holds for the behavior of any individual or group that is felt by its members and by outsiders to function as a cohesive unit. The reader may wonder whether there is any justification-beyond my personal whim and the convenience of having previous work to draw upon-for using women’s language as a paradigm or model for the purpose of illustrating the more general thesis of the existence of a grammar of style. To this I would make the rejoinder that it is as good as ’my, and I must choose one. Thus, Chomsky (1965) chose the modal auxiliary system of English as his example attesting to the need for a grammar of the transformational type, although other examples might as well have been used. But even more to the point, women’s language is accessible to every member of this culture as a stereotype. Whether the stereotype is equally valid for all women is certainly debatable; but the fact of its existence, overt or subliminal, affects every one of us and its assumptions are generally agreed on. Hence it provides an especially clear case. And while women’s language, and women’s style, have long been recognized and commented upon as an aggregate of traits, not much has been done toward accounting for why these particular traits cluster togetherthat is, toward constructing an explanatory, as opposed to a merely descriptive, mode. I shall attempt a beginning of such a systematization: that is, I shall try to make pre-

SOME REASONS WHY THERE CAN'T BE ANY some-any RULE

This paper presents evidence that semantic notions-such as presupposition, speakers and hearers beliefs about the world, and previous discourse-must be taken into account in a complete treatment of the distribution of some and any in conditional, negative, and interrogative sentences. Syntactic conditions alone will not account for the fact that, in certain sentence types, the two forms occur with different meanings. In his article on negation in English, Klima (1964) proposed a rule that has been accepted more or less unquestioningly into the pantheon of known transformational rules of English syntax. This rule was called Indefinite incorporation: it took structures containing a form of the quantifier some and, obligatorily in certain specified environments (particularly in negatives and questions), turned these instances of some to any; (1) [NEG]PVP X - QUANT = neg - X - INDEF + QUANT INDEF + QUAvNT was later rewritten as any. This was the earliest and fullest discussion in transformational grammar of the alternations found in English between these quantifiers, and was the first transformational treatment of the differences in quantification in some-environments and in any-environments. Later work has extended the knowledge of those environments in which any is found: they are summarized in 2. Note that the asterisks are put in according to Klimas formulation.

Tense and Its Relation to Participants

performative verb (cf. Ross 1970), but in Ib its tense is past, because the action it describes is viewed as having occurred prior to the time at which the declaring is taking place: (1) a. Harry is eating his dinner. b. Harry was eating his dinner. In sentences 2-3, the sequence-of-tenses rules operate. So, although semantically Johns being here is contemporaneous with the act of saying in 2, the underlying present appears superficially as a past tense in agreement with the higher verb said; the logical present is is not possible in English (of course, other languages have different sequence-of-tenses constraints). In 3, because the leftmost verb (actually, the verb in the lower sentence of the relative structure) is past tense, the verb that follows it superficially must also be past (counterexamples to this general statement will be discussed below): (2) a. I said that John was here. b. * I said that John is here. (3) a. The boy I spoke to had blue eyes. b. ? The boy I spoke to has blue eyes. If these were the only facts true of tense behavior in English (as w^ell as in other languages), any of several current theories of the origin and underlying form of tenses, with more or fewer modifications, might be sufficient to describe 1 This is a revised version of a paper presented at the December 1969 meeting of the Linguistic Society of America.

Father knows best : the use and abuse of power in Freud's case of Dora

The authors take a revolutionary look at the most famous of Sigmund Freuds cases and make significant connections between Dora and therapeutic relationships in the 1990s. In their careful examination of the case history, Lakoff and Coyne demonstrate that while much of Freuds method has changed, the basic relationship between therapist and client, their power relations, and the consequences thereof, remain intrinsically unaltered. The authors raise difficult and important questions about the nature of gender differences and the roles men and women play, the use and misuse of science, and the relation of content to form and context. Ultimately, the book aims to challenge the very basis of psychoanalysis itself. It also hopes to serve as a truly feminist critique and as an eloquent argument for those therapeutic methods that hold most promise for women. While traditional interpretations of Dora have focused on the patients hysteria and the skill with which Freud uncovered the factors underlying the condition, little of the literature about this case has challenged the assumptions of psychoanalysis. However, through the linguistic approach, the authors show how the communicative strategies within this process create and reinforce an imbalance of power. Father Knows Best should be of interest to students and professors of Womens Studies, linguistics, sociolinguistics, psychology of women, sociology of women, sex roles, and communications.

Talking terrorism: A dictionary of the loaded language of political violence

Philip Herbst , Talking terrorism: A dictionary of the loaded language of political violence . Westport, CT & London: Greenwood, 2003. Pp. xvii, 220. Hb

The O.J. Simpson Case as an Exercise in Narrative Analysis.

49.95. Talking terrorism ( TT ) is not the kind of book typically reviewed in this journal. It is not explicitly about the analysis of language; rather, it is an illustration of the way language can persuade, manipulate, and corrupt. Nor is it written in the expository form expected of scholarly discourse, but instead emulates the form (if not the function) of a dictionary: an alphabetized series of entries, many followed by cross-references.

Language and woman's place

Many fields participate in the analysis of connected text. Linguistics has only recently emerged as one of them. This paper provides an illustration of some of the ways in which the theories and methods of linguistics can be of use in the analysis of discourse. I use as a text reports in a selection of American print media, between June 1994 and October 1995, discussing facets of the O.J. Simpson case, its verdict, and subsequent events. It is suggested that this discourse, viewed as a composite whole, represents a cultures creation, dissolution, and re‐establishment of its sense of cohesion via the making of narrative.